• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Machiavelli said:
In that cottage, all break-ins we have record about were from the balcony.

In general statistics, almost all burglaries are from ground floor doors/windows or from balconies (or equivalent surfaces). I mean it's a figure above 99%.

And there is also another statistical rule: burglars always chose the easiest way in (less dangerous/visible or easiest to break through). Take it as a rule.
Click to expand...

But Guede (or someone who gave or sold him the lawyer's laptop and phone) broke into the second floor of the Perugian lawyers' office by climbing.

So your "99%" is meaningless (besides not supported by any citation by you.)
 
Numbers said:
Machiavelli said:
In that cottage, all break-ins we have record about were from the balcony.

In general statistics, almost all burglaries are from ground floor doors/windows or from balconies (or equivalent surfaces). I mean it's a figure above 99%.

And there is also another statistical rule: burglars always chose the easiest way in (less dangerous/visible or easiest to break through). Take it as a rule.
Click to expand...

But Guede (or someone who gave or sold him the lawyer's laptop and phone) broke into the second floor of the Perugian lawyers' office by climbing.

So your "99%" is meaningless (besides not supported by any citation by you.)
Click to expand...

I love the way he uses "Always" instead of "most commonly."
 
-

Machiavelli said:
Well it's more than a feeling: it's basically what he says in his book. Raffaele writes they - he and his defence team - refrained from requesting to test the semen stain for years, because of fear about the possible outcome.

Obviously he tries to explain that through fear about a forensics' conspiracy, reportedly shared by his attorneys. (but do you believe it?)
Click to expand...
-

Interesting question Mach. I don't see why he would lie about that, but I do wonder why Raffaele would be afraid of the results (if he's really innocent) unless he had a good reason.

I don't know enough about DNA, but as far as the lab work is concerned and with going back for the bra-clasp, if Steffi were really trying to frame them. they would have had no need to go back for the bra-clasp, they would have found their DNA everywhere, but I can still understand Raffaele's hesitance.

Because, I gotta tell you though, I think there's a real possibility of contamination with the bra-clasp, but that's just my opinion,

d

-
 
AmyStrange said:
-

Interesting question Mach. I don't see why he would lie about that, but I do wonder why Raffaele would be afraid of the results (if he's really innocent) unless he had a good reason.

I don't know enough about DNA, but as far as the lab work is concerned and with going back for the bra-clasp, if Steffi were really trying to frame them. they would have had no need to go back for the bra-clasp, they would have found their DNA everywhere, but I can still understand Raffaele's hesitance.

Because, I gotta tell you though, I think there's a real possibility of contamination with the bra-clasp, but that's just my opinion,

-
Click to expand...

It's rational to point out that if Stefanoni wanted to frame him, she would have done that on massive scale. (But for what reason?)

You can understand his hesitance. But can you understand his lawyers'?
And their reported fear that Stefanoni and the Rome scietific police wanted to frame their client?
 
Machiavelli said:
In that cottage, all break-ins we have record about were from the balcony.

In general statistics, almost all burglaries are from ground floor doors/windows or from balconies (or equivalent surfaces). I mean it's a figure above 99%.

And there is also another statistical rule: burglars always chose the easiest way in (less dangerous/visible or easiest to break through). Take it as a rule.
Click to expand...

In contradiction to Mach's preposterous statement here, the window where Guede broke in after climbing by means of the grill on the first (ground) floor window, was made burglar-proof by the installation of a grill over it some time after Meredith's murder. So no one can break in that way since the installation of the grill over what had been Filomena's window.
 
-

Desert Fox said:
I think that Machiavellian is stringing you a line of garbage to be honest. I do not see a legal system working. You can already see by Number's posts that the Italian judiciary does not follow Italian law as is.

I also think that you should not follow him down such flights of fancy.
Click to expand...
-

I think there is some truth to what s/he is saying. There are some places here in the US that have what some places call "Good Samaritan Laws" and in some places you can do time, but they don't charge you with murder.

And to also be honest, it's not a line of garbage to me,

d

-
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
In contradiction to Mach's preposterous statement here, the window where Guede broke in after climbing by means of the grill on the first (ground) floor window, was made burglar-proof by the installation of a grill over it some time after Meredith's murder. So no one can break in that way since the installation of the grill over what had been Filomena's window.
Click to expand...

That is pretty solid evidence that the owners of the house consider it a likely point of entry. . . .You also should notice he did not provide any sources for these other break ins.

I have looked at a number of cases of wrongful convictions and often the prosecutors will argue that they are not wrongful convictions. They often seem to argue similar to the way that Machiavellian does.

Interestingly, there is a case out of California where the evidence was effectively struck down. The prosecution argued that the person should not be released because there were problems with the paperwork :eek:
 
Numbers said:
And how did he get to the balcony? It's a second-floor balcony. My understanding is that he climbed to reach it.
Click to expand...

Of course (and it's particularly easy there). But this is what I am saying, and it's within the statistics I mentioned. Something like 30% of break-ins are from second floor windows, but they are all windows or doors that can be accessed from a surface at that same level, a balcony or a roof, where the burglar can stand.

I am talking about statistics I had already quoted years ago.

By the way, I don't know this yar statistics but recent figures are there are between 600 and 900 break-ins per year in the Province of Perugia.
 
-

Machiavelli said:
It's rational to point out that if Stefanoni wanted to frame him, she would have done that on massive scale. (But for what reason?)

You can understand his hesitance. But can you understand his lawyers'?
And their reported fear that Stefanoni and the Rome scietific police wanted to frame their client?
Click to expand...
-

Of course, I totally agree with the hilited part, but I don't have an answer for the question directly after.

It's not unheard of for innocent people to be framed, but would she do it, and if she did, why?

I don't honestly believe she would, but if she really said there was no contamination in her lab, I have to laugh. I've worked in a research lab before (that also used the same kind of hoods they use in forensic labs), and there is no such thing as no contamination. The cleanest places I know of are the places where they make IC chips, and even they have some contamination, although a lot less than research labs.

But, that's just my opinion,

d

-
 
Last edited:
Professor Vinci's role

Amy Strange,

Professor Vinci found the stain without anyone's help. But the stain should have been (and probably was) tested in the days after the murder. This is the evidence that should have led them to Guede. After having been treated to some of police's shoddy, inept, and unprofessional forensic work, I might have felt (much as Raffaele apparently did) that any result that Stefanoni generated post-November 6th was something that no self-respecting parakeet would want to be used as lining for his cage.
 
Source:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/second-story-man

second-story man
Syllabification: sec·ond-stor·y man
Definition of second-story man in English:
noun
A burglar who enters through an upper-story window.

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/n...en-windows-and-the-second-story-man.html?_r=0

Crime Scene
A Season of Open Windows, and the Second-Story Man
By MICHAEL WILSON
Published: June 8, 2012

ETA: Mach apparently has not heard of this criminal specialty.
 
Last edited:
-

Machiavelli said:
It's rational to point out that if Stefanoni wanted to frame him, she would have done that on massive scale. (But for what reason?)

You can understand his hesitance. But can you understand his lawyers'?
And their reported fear that Stefanoni and the Rome scietific police wanted to frame their client?
Click to expand...
-

Sorry Mach, forgot about the hilited part.

Why do you think his lawyers hesitated?

Maybe the lawyers were just following Raffaele's instructions. Clients do have some control over their lawyers in Italy, don't they?

Or are you asking, do I believe in a conspiracy, or do I believe the lawyers believed there was a conspiracy. Lawyers do things for money. What I mean by that is If their client is willing to pay them to believe in a conspiracy, they'll believe in a conspiracy.

Do I believe there was a conspiracy. No, I don't. Like you really don't need Amanda in the room for her to be guilty of murder, I don't think you need a conspiracy to convict an innocent person, but again, that's just my opinion,

d

-
 
AmyStrange said:
Sorry Mach, forgot about the hilited part.

Why do you think his lawyers hesitated?

Maybe the lawyers were just following Raffaele's instructions. Clients do have some control over their lawyers in Italy, don't they?

Or are you asking, do I believe in a conspiracy, or do I believe the lawyers believed there was a conspiracy. Lawyers do things for money. What I mean by that is If their client is willing to pay them to believe in a conspiracy, they'll believe in a conspiracy.

Do I believe there was a conspiracy. No, I don't. Like you really don't need Amanda in the room for her to be guilty of murder, I don't think you need a conspiracy to convict an innocent person, but again, that's just my opinion,
Click to expand...

Have you looked at other cases where (most likely) innocent defendants are convicted? In these cases, it is well documented that the evidence will be shaded, cops will lie to support other cops, etc. . . .Do you call these actions a conspiracy?
 
-

Chris_Halkides said:
Amy Strange,

Professor Vinci found the stain without anyone's help. But the stain should have been (and probably was) tested in the days after the murder. This is the evidence that should have led them to Guede. After having been treated to some of police's shoddy, inept, and unprofessional forensic work, I might have felt (much as Raffaele apparently did) that any result that Stefanoni generated post-November 6th was something that no self-respecting parakeet would want to be used as lining for his cage.
Click to expand...
-

I had to laugh at that last part. Very funny.

Yeah, I totally understand Raffaele's hesitation.

If I'm innocent and they say they found my DNA on the bra-clasp of Meredith's. I'd be very wary about wanting anything else tested, and it doesn't have to be a conspiracy for me to be rightfully worried,

In my opinion, of course,

d

-
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
It's rational to point out that if Stefanoni wanted to frame him, she would have done that on massive scale. (But for what reason?)

You can understand his hesitance. But can you understand his lawyers'?
And their reported fear that Stefanoni and the Rome scietific police wanted to frame their client?
Click to expand...

Initially, they were framing Raffaele Sollecito by miscounting the number of rings on the soles of his shoes in comparison to the number of rings on the shoe prints in blood in the cottage. Apparently, because both showed rings, they were "compatible" even though differing in number, and, therefore, by Italian judicial logic, Raffaele Sollecito was guilty of murder.

The alleged evidence of Raffaele Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp was only announced when his father went on TV to show that the actual murderer wore shoes with a differing number of rings. That the DNA of several other men, besides someone who might be Sollecito, was "present" on the bra clasp was not disclosed by the police or prosecution, although in Italian law the prosecutor is obligated to provide the defense with all exculpatory evidence that is discovered by the investigation.

It is also noteworthy that, by intentionally improperly storing the bra clasp, Stefanoni destroyed all the DNA evidence on it, before the end of the first 2nd-level trial (Hellmann). Thus, no retesting is possible. This is contrary to international best practice with respect to evidence.

One conclusion that can be drawn is that only the minimum amount of false evidence - which merely needs to be "compatible" - is needed to frame someone in Italy, because the Italian judiciary is generally so cooperative with the prosecution and biased against the defense.
 
-

Desert Fox said:
Have you looked at other cases where (most likely) innocent defendants are convicted? In these cases, it is well documented that the evidence will be shaded, cops will lie to support other cops, etc. . . .Do you call these actions a conspiracy?
Click to expand...
-

Some even have false confessions, even when the confession doesn't match the evidence. All the judicary (and jury, in the US) sees are the three words, "I did it," and nothing matters after that.

The cop thing, I believe, is called the "Thin Blue Line", and there was even a movie by that name about a true to life wrongful conviction, and the movie actually helped straighten out that wrongful conviction. I haven't seen it, so maybe I should and shut-up about it until then.

In the US anyway, it seems to me that judges don't really like stepping all over other judge's decisions (especially murder cases) and that is sometimes part of the problem behind innocent convictions, and none of that really needs a conspiracy to be true, and I don't see any reason why Italy would be any different.

And once again, this is all just my opinion,

d

-
ETA: I can understand why judges (in the US) would not really like to do a lot of stepping (the higher courts do it more than the lower ones), How confusing would that be if all judges overturned all other judges daily. Even, if it was just precedents alone... in my opinion any way (Last time, see my new sig, "Unless otherwise indicated, the above is only my opinion").

-
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
A peculiarity of Amanda Knox as a suspect, was that she knew exactly that all other house lodgers were out that night except Meredith and her. Meredith was the only person - besides her - who would be sleeping at the cottege that night, and both Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox knew that
Click to expand...
This suggests that if there is some doubt Amanda did know this there is considerable doubt she staged the break in. An immediate source of doubt is her email where she thought "someone" rather than Meredith left the front door swinging, maybe to put rubbish out.Since this is in English, her meaning is very clear to English speakers.

so i arrived home and the first abnormal thing i noticed was the door was wide open. here's the thingabout the door to our house: its
broken, in such a way that you have to use the keys to keep it closed.
if we dont have the door locked, it is really easy for the wond to
blow the door open, and so, my roommates and i always have the door
locked unless we are running really quickley to bring the garbage out
or to get something from the neighbors who live below us. (another
important piece of imformation: for those who dont know, i inhabit a
house of two stories, of which my three roommates and i share the
second story appartment. there are four italian guys of our age
between 22 and 26 who live below us. we are all wuite good friends and
we talk often. giacomo is especially welcome because he plays guitar
with me and laura, one of my roommates, and is, or was dating
meredith. the other three are marco, stefano, and ricardo.) anyway, so
the door was wide open. strange, yes, but not so strange that i really
thought anything about it. i assumed someone in the house was doing exactly what i just said, taking out the trash or talking really
uickley to the neighbors downstairs.

That is from your wiki of course.
Reading this it is obvious she had no idea who was home. Furthermore if this was constructed, as you may suggest, to create an alibi against the break in, and its general inadvisability, court testimony would reveal that she in fact was being disingenuous in this email, and knew perfectly well everyone was away.

Are you certain she was certain it was Meredith and her home alone and from what source do you derive this certainty?
 
Desert Fox said:
Have you looked at other cases where (most likely) innocent defendants are convicted? In these cases, it is well documented that the evidence will be shaded, cops will lie to support other cops, etc. . . .Do you call these actions a conspiracy?
Click to expand...

It's important to define "conspiracy". Some people may consider only an agreement between many persons a conspiracy.

However, a legal definition of conspiracy only requires 2 persons.

Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Conspiracy

Conspiracy

An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.

Note that among people who work as a team, like police, forensic lab, and prosecutor, each person knows what his/her role is, and no discussion or verbal agreement to commit certain acts is needed. For example, when the forensics lab tech knows that the sample comes from or is believed by police to be associated with a suspect, the lab tech may tend to do something irregular to "confirm" the guilt of that suspect.

ETA: There was also, after the illegal interrogations of Raffaele and Amanda, a strong incentive for the police and prosecutor to continue the case against them. Admitting that RS and AK were innocent would expose the police and prosecutor to criminal charges, and if convicted, prison terms of 2 to 6 years. CP 377-bis is the Italian law on this.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom